Summarise what was extracted

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses that it processes a few items at a time for practical capacity reasons and that it uses the model. This adds useful behavioral context without contradicting annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two concise, front-loaded sentences that state the action, the triggering condition, the repetition loop, and the rationale for batching. No redundant information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the workflow, batching behavior, and why limits exist. Since an output schema exists, return details are already handled. It lacks error-handling notes, but overall it is sufficient for a tool of this complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has 0% coverage, so the description must compensate. It implies batch_id (via 'a batch') and limit (via 'a few items at a time'), but does not explicitly name or explain the parameters or their effects. Partial compensation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the tool's function: writing summaries and tags for pending extracted items using the model. It references specific workflow states ('needs_summary', 'remaining') which distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_summary.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly states when to call the tool (after archive_batch reports needs_summary) and how to loop until remaining reaches zero. However, it does not mention alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it, so not a full 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.